|
character strings versus byte strings
Matthew Flatt
(22 Dec 2003 14:16 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings
Per Bothner
(22 Dec 2003 17:09 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings Matthew Flatt (22 Dec 2003 17:23 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings
tb@xxxxxx
(22 Dec 2003 20:23 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings
Tom Lord
(22 Dec 2003 22:36 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings
tb@xxxxxx
(22 Dec 2003 22:41 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings
Shiro Kawai
(22 Dec 2003 23:00 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: character strings versus byte strings
Michael Sperber
(23 Dec 2003 09:36 UTC)
|
||
Re: character strings versus byte strings Matthew Flatt 22 Dec 2003 17:23 UTC
At Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:09:44 -0800, Per Bothner wrote: > Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > * Where "char *" is used for strings (e.g., "expected_explanation" for > > a type error), define it to be an ASCII or Latin-1 encoding (I > > prefer the latter). > > No, it should be UTF-8. I think you're right. > So if I was designing a Scheme dialect for internationalization, > I'd do away with mutable strings. That sounds right, too. So, one straightforward apporach is that C code only mutates byte strings, and string operations in the C API use UTF-8. (I think some particular encoding has to be chosen, even with the performance implications.) Matthew